and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

In the 2000 local election, only 28% of individuals between [#permalink]
10 Nov 2012, 10:20

2

This post wasBOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

88%(01:00) correct
13%(02:10) wrong based on 67 sessions

In the 2000 local election, only 28% of individuals between the ages of 18 and 25 voted. In the 2004 local election, however, candidates made more of an effort to appeal to these younger voters, so turnout was slightly higher at 39%.

Which of the following pieces of information weakens the above argument?

A. The candidates for city council were ages 55, 72, and 64.B. The turnout among voters between the ages of 35 and 44 was 42% in 2004.C. Turnout among African-Americans between 18 and 25 decreased from 2000 to 2004.D. The polls stayed open later on Election Day in 2000.E. In 2004, a referendum on lowering the legal age for purchasing alcohol to 18 was on the ballot. _________________

Re: In the 2000 local election, only 28% of individuals between [#permalink]
13 Oct 2013, 05:16

1

This post receivedKUDOS

IMO C

For me I was stuck between C & E.

C says that "Turnout among African-Americans between 18 and 25 decreased from 2000 to 2004". Even though it doesn't represent the general % increase for the age-group 18 to 25, it weakens the argument that the candidate made efforts to make the youngsters in the age-group vote in 2004 election, resulting into increase in the 2004 election votes for the age-group 18-25. There might be other reasons for the increase to 39%.

E says that "In 2004, a referendum on lowering the legal age for purchasing alcohol to 18 was on the ballot". This actually means that candidates made an effort of bringing referendum to encourage the age-group 18 to 25 to vote in 2004 election. Therefore, this option seems to actually strengthen the argument.

Experts please help in answering this question as your inputs will help in attacking such questions irrespective of the correct answer.

Re: In the 2000 local election, only 28% of individuals between [#permalink]
13 Oct 2013, 07:29

1

This post receivedKUDOS

I'm no expert, but I hope you don't mind me sharing my thoughts!

mba1382 wrote:

IMO CC says that "Turnout among African-Americans between 18 and 25 decreased from 2000 to 2004". Even though it doesn't represent the general % increase for the age-group 18 to 25, it weakens the argument that the candidate made efforts to make the youngsters in the age-group vote in 2004 election, resulting into increase in the 2004 election votes for the age-group 18-25. There might be other reasons for the increase to 39%.

Let's put it this way:Argument: Number of ballots cast by youth in 2000 was 220/500, but was 232/500 in 2004 -- therefore, voter turnout increased.

A - E: different groups aged 18 - 25

2000A: 25B: 40 C: 25D: 40E: 90 Voter turnout: 44%

2004A: 5B: 47 C: 35D: 45E: 100 Voter turnout: 46.4%

Despite Group A, voter turnout is still higher in 2004. Had the question stated: "... candidates made more of an effort to appeal to these younger voters all individual groups, so turnout was slightly higher at 39%", perhaps C could have been a more viable answer... yet still, B) voter turnout increased, and supposedly, it's because A) candidates appealed to younger voters -- in other words, A caused B. So, your reasoning is absolutely correct when you state, "There might be other reasons for the increase to 39%"; we must show that A may not have caused B -- and answer C does not show this.

__________

mba1382 wrote:

IMO CE says that "In 2004, a referendum on lowering the legal age for purchasing alcohol to 18 was on the ballot". This actually means that candidates made an effort of bringing referendum to encourage the age-group 18 to 25 to vote in 2004 election. Therefore, this option seems to actually strengthen the argument.

Your reasoning is correct, except that the argument does not state that candidates put the referendum on the ballot to attract youth. The argument states that during the local election, candidates increased youth voter turnout by appealing to them. How they did so is not mentioned, so we cannot assume that their strategy was to use the referendum. So, if E were true, we ask: "Did candidates successfully increase voter turnout because they targeted youth?", our answer would be: "Well, this is possible, but it is also likely that the youth turnout increased because they wanted to vote on the referendum." In other words, A or C caused B. Therefore, we cannot conclude indefinitely that A caused B.

Re: In the 2000 local election, only 28% of individuals between [#permalink]
13 Oct 2013, 07:36

1

This post receivedKUDOS

Thanks. Really appreciate your reasoning. ....

sammervash wrote:

I'm no expert, but I hope you don't mind me sharing my thoughts!

mba1382 wrote:

IMO CC says that "Turnout among African-Americans between 18 and 25 decreased from 2000 to 2004". Even though it doesn't represent the general % increase for the age-group 18 to 25, it weakens the argument that the candidate made efforts to make the youngsters in the age-group vote in 2004 election, resulting into increase in the 2004 election votes for the age-group 18-25. There might be other reasons for the increase to 39%.

Let's put it this way:Argument: Number of ballots cast by youth in 2000 was 220/500, but was 232/500 in 2004 -- therefore, voter turnout increased.

A - E: different groups aged 18 - 25

2000A: 25B: 40 C: 25D: 40E: 90 Voter turnout: 44%

2004A: 5B: 47 C: 35D: 45E: 100 Voter turnout: 46.4%

Despite Group A, voter turnout is still higher in 2004. Had the question stated: "... candidates made more of an effort to appeal to these younger voters all individual groups, so turnout was slightly higher at 39%", perhaps C could have been a more viable answer... yet still, B) voter turnout increased, and supposedly, it's because A) candidates appealed to younger voters -- in other words, A caused B. So, your reasoning is absolutely correct when you state, "There might be other reasons for the increase to 39%"; we must show that A may not have caused B -- and answer C does not show this.

__________

mba1382 wrote:

IMO CE says that "In 2004, a referendum on lowering the legal age for purchasing alcohol to 18 was on the ballot". This actually means that candidates made an effort of bringing referendum to encourage the age-group 18 to 25 to vote in 2004 election. Therefore, this option seems to actually strengthen the argument.

Your reasoning is correct, except that the argument does not state that candidates put the referendum on the ballot to attract youth. The referendum is separate from the election, and what the argument states is that during the local election, candidates increased youth voter turnout by appealing to them. How they did so is not mentioned, so we cannot assume that their strategy was to use the referendum. So, if E were true, we ask: "Did candidates successfully increase voter turnout because they targeted youth?", our answer would be: "Well, this is possible, but it is also likely that the youth turnout increased because they wanted to vote on the referendum." In other words, A or C caused B. Therefore, we cannot conclude indefinitely that A caused B.

Re: In the 2000 local election, only 28% of individuals between [#permalink]
10 Nov 2012, 10:31

kingb wrote:

In the 2000 local election, only 28% of individuals between the ages of 18 and 25 voted. In the 2004 local election, however, candidates made more of an effort to appeal to these younger voters, so turnout was slightly higher at 39%.

Which of the following pieces of information weakens the above argument?

A. The candidates for city council were ages 55, 72, and 64.B. The turnout among voters between the ages of 35 and 44 was 42% in 2004.C. Turnout among African-Americans between 18 and 25 decreased from 2000 to 2004.D. The polls stayed open later on Election Day in 2000.E. In 2004, a referendum on lowering the legal age for purchasing alcohol to 18 was on the ballot.

Answer has to E.

Turnout was slightly higher at 39% because candidates made more effort. typical Cause and effect scenario.So we can weaken by showing the mentioned cause was not the actual cause, as showed by answer choice E. If these 18 yr olds tuned out for voting because of other reasons ( to vote for a referendum lowering the legal age for purchasing alcohol) and not because of candidates's efforts then the argument is weakened.

Re: In the 2000 local election, only 28% of individuals between [#permalink]
11 Oct 2013, 09:08

kingb wrote:

In the 2000 local election, only 28% of individuals between the ages of 18 and 25 voted. In the 2004 local election, however, candidates made more of an effort to appeal to these younger voters, so turnout was slightly higher at 39%.

Which of the following pieces of information weakens the above argument?

A. The candidates for city council were ages 55, 72, and 64.B. The turnout among voters between the ages of 35 and 44 was 42% in 2004.C. Turnout among African-Americans between 18 and 25 decreased from 2000 to 2004.D. The polls stayed open later on Election Day in 2000.E. In 2004, a referendum on lowering the legal age for purchasing alcohol to 18 was on the ballot.

Agree with (E), they were not more appealed by the candidates but they wanted to vote for the referendum for lowering the age to buy alcohol legallySo this weakens it. For weaken questions, always keep an eye on other possible explanations/circumstances that could also explain some event.

A. The candidates for city council were ages 55, 72, and 64.- Incorrect: irrelevant. Even if candidates were 19, 22, and 26, one cannot be sure that age had any bearing on voter turnout (simply because it wasn't mentioned in the argument).

B. The turnout among voters between the ages of 35 and 44 was 42% in 2004.- Incorrect: irrelevant. We're concerned about the voter turnout of those between 18 and 25. Even if this was true, it wouldn't weaken the argument.

C. Turnout among African-Americans between 18 and 25 decreased from 2000 to 2004.- Incorrect: irrelevant. This may be true, but we know that in general, the voter turnout for those aged 18 to 25 increased between 2000 and 2004.

D. The polls stayed open later on Election Day in 2000.- Incorrect: irrelevant. The argument wants to prove that targeting youth caused an increase in voter turnout, not times the polls closed.

E. In 2004, a referendum on lowering the legal age for purchasing alcohol to 18 was on the ballot.- Correct: The topic of the referendum is irrelevant (and maybe stereotypical!), although the age mentioned is key (this referendum would affect the exact age group candidates were targeting). This poses a serious question: did voter turnout increase because of the referendum, or because candidates targeted youth? This casts doubt on the argument's conclusion, therefore, we can be sure that E weakens the argument.

Re: In the 2000 local election, only 28% of individuals between [#permalink]
15 Jun 2015, 07:56

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

gmatclubot

Re: In the 2000 local election, only 28% of individuals between
[#permalink]
15 Jun 2015, 07:56